How is determined how many transactions will be included in a block? Do nodes use all transactions that were broadcast to them, or do they choose a selection from amongst them? If so, why don't they just use all transactions that were known by them at the moment they started working on a new block?
There's a protocol hard-coded limit of 1MB per block which no miner can violate (the block would be rejected by the network). There are also softer limits most miners implement, I think. But roughly, despite this 1MB limit, it's the miner's choice how to fill his block. (obviously, the block must be valid, i.e., respect fundamental protocol rules like not to include a double-spend, not to spend somebody's money without authorization etc) |
|
|
|
As for KYC/AML: no capital gain taxes is different from money laundering rules and terrorism funding. These days governments are more concerned with those aspects than capital gains.
Oh come on, everybody knows KYC laws exist to fight tax evasion. But yeah, it might be possible that governments that don't care whether you identify yourself before buying shares force you to do it anyway, due to pressure from strong, income-taxing governments. |
|
|
|
And if Nefario transfers GLBSE to another jurisdiction they can still go after him as they explicitly told him he's not allowed to do it.
Are you saying UK has the habit of forbidding people to do stuff anywhere in the world? I don't understand why changing jurisdiction would not be possible. but it will mean KYC/AML etc...so it certainly won't be anonymous, not for the issuers and not for the investors
Is this the case everywhere in the world? There's absolutely no country where investors may buy shares anonymously? I know there are countries where there's no capital gain taxes. Why would these governments care whether you identify yourself before buying shares? |
|
|
|
As stated elsewhere, GLBSE is not located in the U.S. The SEC can not shut down GLBSE any more than they can shut down the London Stock Exchange.
This guy probably thought the same: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-filesharing-extradition-idUSTRE80C15C20120113I personally feel the choice of UK as a place to register GLBSE was maybe not the best. UK is known to be very subordinate to the US government. I'd feel more comfortable if they had chosen a country like Switzerland, Iceland, or even a micro-country like Liechtenstein or Singapore. But well, what do I know, IANAL. |
|
|
|
What will be exchanged will be Bitcoin certificates, not actual Bitcoins.
Does anyone know if Open Transactions is flexible enough to support multi-signature transactions? Anyways, even if OT itself doesn't, it shouldn't be impossible to develop some sort of "certificate protocol" that does support it. So yeah, you're right davout, multi-sig is not incompatible with shared wallets. Intrabank transfers could be done outside of the blockchain - with the security of multi-signature. The blockchain would probably be used only for bank compensations. |
|
|
|
Hosted wallets, account hubs.
In the future I see the blockchain used mainly for inter-bank compensation. Bitcoin will be the foundation for overlay protocols, its raw form wouldn't be used by housewives.
I once thought the same. But then multi-sig came by, with all its advantages. Costumers having a part of the key while the "bank" has the other is a much more safe architecture than "bank controls all". It's safe for the costumers, because they don't lose their money even if their keys are stolen - as long as the thief doesn't manage to authenticate himself as the costumer, a strong authentication mechanism is still essential. It's safer for the bank, as a hack of its wallet is not enough to spend the money. It's also safer to the banker (his meatspace self), since thugs will have no incentive to force him to give them "all the money", as the banker himself cannot do it. Multi-sig is better in many ways. But with such architecture, I don't see how can you share addresses with other costumers of the same bank. |
|
|
|
I don't see what the problem is? They can't give some "cash" to their son because...?
Because they have 10 BTC and need 8 BTC for spa-massage and makeup. Should they give just 1.9 BTC not 2 BTC for dinner? Ok. Wait! To pay for the massage and makeup... it's necessary to have 8.1 BTC.. But what if massage and makeup r payed separately, then it's 8.2 BTC... Hey, I need a computer! You're mixing stuff. 10 BTC is everything she has to spend during the day? An amount that barely pays spa + son's dinner? I doubt. She probably has more, and the amount is probably is not "round", as probably is your bank account balance right now (or do you have an exact power of 10 as money in your bank right now?) You're thinking on "$10 bills" or other round values like that - which may still be an option, you may print BTC bills. But if the transaction is electronic, she'll probably have a "not round amount" of coins, will transfer 2 BTC to her son, and keep having a "not round amount" of coins. Where's the problem? |
|
|
|
You'll find the priority formula here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_feeKeep in mind these are not really mandatory. Any miner may ignore such rules and create a block with a different transaction policy. These rules were hardcoded in the Satoshi client as a method to prevent transaction spam, in the absence of something better. I hope one they these rules are replaced by an actual anti-spam code, but that's not easy and I guess there are more urgent development priorities. As most nodes respect such hardcoded fee policy, you'll have a hard time broadcasting a transaction that does not respect it - most peers won't relay it. If you really want to ignore this policy, you should try to send your transactions directly to the miner that ignores it too. |
|
|
|
However, I 100% firmly believe that non-deterministic wallets should be abandoned entirely as a failed experiment. Perhaps they should be left as an option with clear warnings about their problems.
+1 While the Satoshi client doesn't use deterministic wallets, an alternative for its users would be to have the wallet.dat be a symbolic link towards a safe backup account, like Wuala for example. This way your backup is updated on real-time. People keep losing their money and it's getting ridiculous. One of the biggest problems with Bitcoin is it's damn near impossible to use it safely.
You use strong words, but yeah, you have to understand in details how things work to be safe. We cannot expect that of most people. I still don't recommend my parents for example, to store wealth in bitcoins. And they're not totally computer-illiterate, they know how to send e-mails, to chat, to use facebook and watch youtube. My father even has a blog.  But I don't think they would be able to protect their keys. It's a pity. |
|
|
|
|
he, whenever (if ever) the owners of SR decide to shut down, they could earn some money with bets like these.
|
|
|
|
I was at the conference and the truth is that it was very ideology and technology oriented. I'm fairly sure the focus on ideology and technology was because of who the main organizer (genjix) is. Everything there reflected him basically.
Agreed. And I'd risk saying the focus on technology was not deep enough for the geeks among us, and the focus on ideology was maybe too far to the "left" for my taste (no wonder why the vice reporter called it a "socialist thing"). I liked the conference, don't get me wrong,
Same thing here! I'm personally planning a different kind of conference for next year that would be held in Helsinki, Finland. It would be a sort of joint mobile payments / virtual currencies conference with a business focus, with Bitcoin perhaps representing half of the program. We already have a major partner for the other 50% from the mobile payments scene.
Cool! But please, do it during summer then. |
|
|
|
Though I am a supporter of gun ownership and the right to defend one's home, I do also believe this story is a bit stretched indeed. This guy was probably in his own right to self defense, but I do not like the way people say he's a hero or something.
He should have shot a warning shot. The japanese case mentionned above proves that honest mistakes can happen.
Also, what's stopping us to think that the guy was kind of happy of the idea that a burgler entered his house, so that he could enjoyed the manhunt and the kill? It's not as if the presence of a stranger in your house should give you a total license to kill. I'm ok to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, considering his advanced age (he probably could not think as fast as a young man) and all... But felicitations? Honors? I don't think so. Though it's not a crime, it's not really a good example either, as it is not the wisest use of a gun, to say the least.
« Hum, I haven't recently heard of this old man who lives nearby. Maybe I should check he's ok. Oh, the door is loose. "Mr xXXX??" Damned, Why am I shouting his name? I recall the old man doesn't hear anything. I think I hear some footsteps in the stairs. Oh, here he is! Hello.... hang on, what does he hold in his han.... BANG!! »
I haven't managed to read the entire thread, but saw this post, which I agree with. I support the right to own and bear firearms. But, retaliation must be proportional. Killing so quickly does seem too much to me. He should have given some type of warning before shooting (warning shot is the best since that leaves evidence), or at least assuring himself the burglar was armed and represented a lethal threat. I don't support what this man has done (if it really happened as described by OP's link) |
|
|
|
|
You post it at 13:30 and then complains that nobody has tested it yet at 15:15? You expected reviews and such in less than 2h?
I'm particularly interested in trying to set up a raspberry pi wallet, but first of all I'll have to acquire one, what apparently isn't that fast,
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't the attacker state his motives? Is it for money, or what?
|
|
|
|
Besides applying security in various forms, the exchanges also need to be insured against theft and the like.
This is brought up frequently (insurance), but it's just not that simple. It's too easy to fake a theft and get the insurance to cover it. I'm not saying it's impossible, just saying that such an insurer would need a very high level of expertise to prevent himself from being cheated. The insurer would need to require the insured eWallet to implement tons of security measures, and perhaps even use multisignature techniques in order to keep some control of the coins, I don't know. I still think that multi-signature wallets, in which the eWallet costumer has one half of the keys and the eWallet the other, is probably the best solution. This would probably rule out the "old-fashioned attacks" that OP talks about, and a hack ripping off the entire wallet would also be extremely difficult. The hacker would have to install some clever malware in the server that would infect the eWallet users' machines and silently collect their keys, to spend everything only once he has most of them. And even that could be prevented with a browser addon, as suggested by Stephen Thomas in his presentation yesterday at London. With such architecture, insurance would also be much easier: the insurer can be sure that his client cannot steal all the money. |
|
|
|
It might be hard to get 8 servers in different parts of the world even if each was relatively insecure. Possibly not so hard to trick them into signing unless the system was well designed.
The attacker doesn't need to get physical access to all servers. As long as someone has legit access to all servers, the attacker may just force this person to give him the money. |
|
|
|
This "physical theft" is dangerous stuff, and will guarantee the loss of at least the hot wallet (multisig will still fail once all the servers are physically stolen).
Multisig won't fail if the other party necessary for the signature are the customers. I think we can safely rule out the possibility of attacking every single costumer. |
|
|
|
|
Sick, criminal people could do even worse things.
Everybody knows who's the owner of MtGox for example. Does he have a family? If he has, they can be kidnapped...
That's another reason to use multi-signature. If the criminals know that the ewallet operators are not capable of spending the money they store without the express consent of their customers, then what's the point in trying to coerce such ewallet operators?
If I controlled a BTC wallet worth millions, and that was a public fact, I'd be very concerned with my personal safety.
|
|
|
|
|
OP, juste au cas où tu ne sais pas, il y a des clients qui n'ont pas besoin de cette synchronisation, comme Multibit et Electrum (ce dernier étant client-server et non p2p, il est le plus rapide, mais le serveur peut connaître tous tes transactions.. il peut pas piquer ton argent par contre).
|
|
|
|
PM me for more info.
PM sent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
